Could there ever be another conventional World War?

[SunnyD]

I was thinking about it, the draft and all that fun stuff wondering what a REAL war would be like. I guess after spending half a day doing the Wikipedia crawl on WWII information will do that.

It got me to thinking - could there ever possibly be another global-scale conventional war? I would think that it would take a country or coalition of countries to have the kind of balls that you see hanging from a 1500 pound bull or just be totally insane (latter is possible) to challenge the modern world with a conventional war. I would think at the very least that those countries involved would have to possess a nuclear arsenal and be very willing to use it in order to accomplish any gains in any sort of war. And of course, that would likely cause nuclear attrition in the end, even if a response was started conventionally.

So what's everyone's opinion here? Could there possibly be another World War that would be conducted solely with conventional arms?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein

 

[MovingTarget]

I wouldn't think so. However, I can see the use of mass drivers instead of nukes if former superpowers are involved. All the boom without that whole messy radioactivity nonsense...

 

[So]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I wouldn't think so. However, I can see the use of mass drivers instead of nukes if former superpowers are involved. All the boom without that whole messy radioactivity nonsense...

I don't think you realize, but while radioactivity is a big negative after peace breaks out, making your enemy's country radioactive during a total war is what comcast would call a "value add"

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I wouldn't think so. However, I can see the use of mass drivers instead of nukes if former superpowers are involved. All the boom without that whole messy radioactivity nonsense...

I don't think you realize, but while radioactivity is a big negative after peace breaks out, making your enemy's country radioactive during a total war is what comcast would call a "value add"

No, the comcast guy would show up too late for the war to launch the nukes. Radioactivity problem solved. :thumbsup:

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I wouldn't think so. However, I can see the use of mass drivers instead of nukes if former superpowers are involved. All the boom without that whole messy radioactivity nonsense...

Mass drivers would still create their own set of problems. Throwing up tons and tons of dust into the atmosphere could cool the entire planet and cause global problems as well.

 

[a123456]

I can see a world war with strictly tactical nukes being used. The justification is that yeah, you kill a lot of fish or irradiate a military target but the civilian population will be relatively unharmed. After all, a tactical nuke can easily take out a carrier, which would do huge things in turning a war around. Of course, no one wants to go full out ICBM nuking the entire world but a small scale ~20KT nuke on military targets wouldn't surprise me greatly if/when there's a future world war. A retaliation of a 200KT-3000KT on a city would look really bad in response to a small tactical nuke so I don't think countries would kill the world. We've unleashed the nuclear beast and it's just too tempting not to use if it can give a huge advantage without that bad of a consequence.

 

[Genx87]

Only if missle defense greatly improves.

 

[slsmnaz]

it would be possible until a side that had nukes started losing

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: slsmnaz
it would be possible until a side that had nukes started losing

It really depends on the country and what was at stake. If this theoretical war was a war of survival, then it would be impossible to stop the use of nuclear weapons. If it was essentially a large-scale squabble over territory, then I could see a losing country realizing that launching a nuclear strike against the soon-to-be-victors as a bad, bad idea.

There is some precedent for a large-scale war not using specific weapons. Though gas was a huge part of WW1, no combatant in World War II used gas in a combat situations. Even as Germany's situation became increasingly desperate, they did not resort to gas attacks.

Granted, gas and nukes are different beasts.

 

[JTsyo]

I don't think you can get a large forces mobilized. Once a sizable force gets concentrated, it becomes a prime target for the enemy using bomb and long range missiles. Also the technological advantage the NATO countries have would be a force multiplier. I don't think the population advantage countries like China and India will help outside their borders. It would be very difficult to maintain long supply lines against enemies that control the skies.

 

[MotF Bane]

No.

 

[DaWhim]

globalization at this rate = no

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: JTsyo
I don't think you can get a large forces mobilized. Once a sizable force gets concentrated, it becomes a prime target for the enemy using bomb and long range missiles. Also the technological advantage the NATO countries have would be a force multiplier. I don't think the population advantage countries like China and India will help outside their borders. It would be very difficult to maintain long supply lines against enemies that control the skies.

Agreed for the most part. But my original implication was we're talking about what would amount to equally superior forces, not ragtag militia forces that are fielded as armies like what you see in the middle east. With the assumption that both sides would have relatively equal technology, you couldn't guarantee air superiority by any means, meaning you'd have to slog it out both on the ground AND the air (and sea). At that point, I would wonder if first strike (even limited/surgical) wouldn't be a viable option. I would think the only thing that would stop attrition would be the threat of a larger secondary strike.

Some despot taking an inept stab at global domination with a handful of troops isn't going to start a world war.

 

[BoomerD]

I was expecting to see "Bush's War" in Iraq explode into a total Middle-East conflict of such a calibre that it would quickly become a World War.
Fortunately, it appears that cooler heads in that region have prevailed...for now.

It wouldn't have taken much for that war to have gained the perception of a "War on Islam," and Muslims around the world taking up arms.

 

[mrkun]

Although not a "World War," the Iran-Iraq war wasn't that long ago -- WWI style warfare with as many as a million dead.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I wouldn't think so. However, I can see the use of mass drivers instead of nukes if former superpowers are involved. All the boom without that whole messy radioactivity nonsense...

Mass drivers would still create their own set of problems. Throwing up tons and tons of dust into the atmosphere could cool the entire planet and cause global problems as well.

True, but the same can be said for widespread use of nuclear weapons. On a smaller/medium scale, mass drivers may be preferable as they don't 'salt the earth' with radioactivity for a while.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: mrkun
Although not a "World War," the Iran-Iraq war wasn't that long ago -- WWI style warfare with as many as a million dead.

That's because the Iranians sent hundreds of thousands of unarmed conscripts running onto battle fields to zerg rush the Iraqis. The iranians were just mowed down. Both sides did use chemical weapons on eachother and on cities.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

yes, but first there must be a nuclear one! or zombie outbreak.

 

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: mrkun
Although not a "World War," the Iran-Iraq war wasn't that long ago -- WWI style warfare with as many as a million dead.

That's because the Iranians sent hundreds of thousands of unarmed conscripts running onto battle fields to zerg rush the Iraqis. The iranians were just mowed down. Both sides did use chemical weapons on eachother and on cities.

At least according to the people cited in the Wikipedia article, there's not really any evidence that Iran used chemical weapons.

 

[eldorado99]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I was expecting to see "Bush's War" in Iraq explode into a total Middle-East conflict of such a calibre that it would quickly become a World War.
Fortunately, it appears that cooler heads in that region have prevailed...for now.

It wouldn't have taken much for that war to have gained the perception of a "War on Islam," and Muslims around the world taking up arms.

Why do you say that? (I'm genuinely curious and NOT trying to start a P&N flame war).

 

[AznAnarchy99]

It will just be like Fallout 3... i just started playing it =)

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Originally posted by: a123456
I can see a world war with strictly tactical nukes being used. The justification is that yeah, you kill a lot of fish or irradiate a military target but the civilian population will be relatively unharmed. After all, a tactical nuke can easily take out a carrier, which would do huge things in turning a war around. Of course, no one wants to go full out ICBM nuking the entire world but a small scale ~20KT nuke on military targets wouldn't surprise me greatly if/when there's a future world war. A retaliation of a 200KT-3000KT on a city would look really bad in response to a small tactical nuke so I don't think countries would kill the world. We've unleashed the nuclear beast and it's just too tempting not to use if it can give a huge advantage without that bad of a consequence.

It would need to hit the carrier (or hit close enough) first.

I doubt there would be something like World War II again because of the nukes, and most coutnries probably do as well considering the shift towards smaller, more mobile forces as opposed to the old armies of millions.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I was expecting to see "Bush's War" in Iraq explode into a total Middle-East conflict of such a calibre that it would quickly become a World War.
Fortunately, it appears that cooler heads in that region have prevailed...for now.

It wouldn't have taken much for that war to have gained the perception of a "War on Islam," and Muslims around the world taking up arms.

I doubt even the entire middle east combined would have the means to challenge the U.S. in a war that can be compared to World War I or II.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I was expecting to see "Bush's War" in Iraq explode into a total Middle-East conflict of such a calibre that it would quickly become a World War.
Fortunately, it appears that cooler heads in that region have prevailed...for now.

It wouldn't have taken much for that war to have gained the perception of a "War on Islam," and Muslims around the world taking up arms.

I doubt even the entire middle east combined would have the means to challenge the U.S. in a war that can be compared to World War I or II.

Really? Hell, with the help of the Allies, WWII was over in less time than we've been mired in Iraq...and we can't even control Baghdad...